From WikiLeaks

Redacted versus Unredacted versions comparison ?

Do you have a copy of the redacted version (still unavailable from the Turks & Caicos Islands Commission of Inquiry website), so that people can compare it with this wikileaks unredacted version, to see exactly what was being censored from publication ?

"text of the redacted version" taken offline by order of the Governor

At my request, The Commission of Inquiry removed the text of the redacted version of the Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry from their website as soon as it became apparent that it was possible to access the unredacted text.

Turks and Caicos Islands Commission of Inquiry -unredacted

"Governor of Turks and Caicos apologises to resort developers Dr. Cem Kinay, Mario Hoffman and Jak Civre for inadvertently naming them in the corruption enquiry report of Misick. The unedited enquiry report was posted on Wikileaks, a document that should not have included the names of the names of land developers in Turks and Caicos. The Governor of Turks and Caicos regrets that someone ran with the incorrect document and posted it here on Wikileaks. This was not a cover-up order and it was not a media gag order was said about this document. It was a final reporting of ousted Premier Michael Misick."

So I don't get this. You say this is official, yet they say "there was a mistake". You guys are the experts, I read this, it's disturbing, but is it true? (I'm asking you, WL, not the TCI people)1.0.22.53 05:24, 19 September 2009 (BST)

The enquiry report and the redacted text. Three developers were named in the commission report Kinay, Civre and Hoffmann. Though they acted as witnesses to the investigation, the wording of the report implicated the men as contributors of the corruption. It may well be that the campaign contributions were legal as there no campaign contribution laws or restrictions in Turks and Caicos. And, as such, these men had authority to have their names removed and redacted from the report in accordance with the Turks and Caicos Supreme Court decision.

Some say that the leak of the unredacted report naming the developers was malicious and illegal and suited a political purpose. Though that information cannot be yet proven.